Открыть дело

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: sections the user lacks rights to are marked unavailable, while the rest of the card is still shown. This is important for an agent to avoid assuming failure on partial access.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and its key contents; the second adds an important edge-case behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers both the response content and the partial-access behavior. The parameter fallback is documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single optional parameter 'business' is fully described in the input schema (name or ID, with fallback to the default or the only business). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description names the resource (business/file card) and explicitly lists its contents: requisites, the user's role and rights, and accounts with current balances. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like businesses_list (list view) and accounts_list (accounts-only view), and aligns with the tool name businesses_get.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context for when to use this tool: when a detailed business card with rights and balances is needed, rather than listing or modifying businesses. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score, but the usage context is evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.